I understand what you're saying and how you feel. It does seem like Shannon is being unmercifully chastized. Though, if John, who appears to have a mastery of exactly what Hahnemann is saying and the deeper meaning behind it is discouraged from being critical and pointing her and many of us on the proper track, it only further dilutes what Hahnemann strived to do. That's exactly what Julian Winston did, demand that we:. Read, reread, and read again The Organon, Chronic Diseases.
It's easy to twist homeopathy into anything we want. This doesn't mean relevant experimentation should be discouraged, just put into context.
Having been on these lists since the late 90's, it's because of all the homeopaths and followers who posted that helped me many times by forcing me to do the research and reading to better understand their viewpoint and ask relevant questions and develop and voice my own ideas. Now, through my own 16 year homeopathic adventure searching for my own cure, even realizing there could be a cure, I'm better able to handle certain situations solo because there is so much variability among homeopaths, what they follow, how they practice that sometimes one has to become their own homeopath. I'ved had 4th, 5th and now 6th ed. Organon classical homeopaths, each provides a different experience into homeopathic treatment. None, yet, has all the answers. I don't feel anyone of them, even the famous ones I've seen, always consistently properly interpret and/or practice exactly what Hahnemann has written and then prescribe accordingly. Basically, it's easy to get sloppy and improvise.
I do understand the fervoe behind John's explosive comments on Shannon's rather carefree-like light hearted explanation of Hahnemann's choice of single vs. poly/combo prescribing. I don't think Hahnemann did anything lightly but with utmost seriousness. I also feel Shannon has grown a-lot over years by showing interest and participating in discussion whether she may be correct in all her assumptions. She certainly doesn't wither away when criticized and hopefully learns from it. It is up to those like John to at least set the record straight as many newbies to homeopathy will read these posts and should realize the complexity of classical homeopathy along with the miracle of it while us oldbies may need reminders. It also show us that as much as we do know, there is much more to master.
While it is time consuming and not pleasant to participate, experience and respond to criticism, it can contribute to learning and understanding when done properly.
If none of us strive to maintain and promote the Hahnemann legacy, then we are bound for extinction and/or assimilation into alternative medicine, overwhelmed by and unable to defend ourselves and coherently respond to allopathy. It's like, not likely, that cures like.
Susan
-----Original Message-----
From: Wendy Howard <wendy@smeddum.net>
To: homeopathy <homeopathy@homeolist.com>
Sent: Wed, Dec 21, 2011 2:46 pm
Subject: Re: [H] Combos vs. Singles
Since this discussion epitomises exactly why I stopped participating in the
omeopathy lists the best part of a decade ago, I'll have my say (somewhat
engthy - apologies - but hey! you won't have to read any more than this from
e) then disappear back into oblivion again ...
To paraphrase Anne Lamott quoting a priest, "You can safely assume that you've
reated Homeopathy in your own image when it turns out Homeopathy excludes all
he same people you do."
How is it SO much time and energy is expended on perpetually going round in the
ame circles?! Shouldn't the singular failure of this debate to advance so much
s one step forward in ... what, 200 years? ... be telling us something
undamental and axiomatic about this question?! That, to quote Einstein, "No
roblem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."?
Homeopathy does not exist in isolation. It utilises exactly the same universal
rinciples used in many systems of healing. It's one among many, there are all
anner of shades of grey in between and we don't know the half of it yet. If we
on't even know the mechanism by which the practice of homeopathy actually
chieves a curative reaction, then the theory remains just that: theory,
uesswork and post hoc rationalisation based on circular logic. To believe
therwise is to mistake the map for the territory.
To look out in superficial judgement from the standpoint of our own perspective
t what someone else is doing, without being open minded enough to take the time
o completely immerse ourselves in THEIR outlook, logic and rationale, to follow
hem for some period of time to evaluate their success or otherwise, is to treat
hem in exactly the same way that sceptics treat homeopaths. Our judgements,
ust like those of the sceptics, are based on our own circular logic. But a
ifferent logic creates a different experience of reality. How can we judge if
t's any more valid than our own? We can't. Because we're using exactly the same
echanisms in the creation of our own reality.
How do we know that combos don't work as well as single remedies? Especially
hen we've never given them the benefit of the doubt, or attempted to see them
n any other terms but from the perspective of a single remedy prescriber? We
an theorise all we like, but theorising is a million miles from real
xperience.
So where do we draw the line between 'homeopathy' and 'not-homeopathy'?
The answer is we can't, because the boundary is not a line. It's a wide region
f fuzziness. No matter how close you pull the boundaries in towards
ahnemannian homeopathy, they remain, and will always remain, fuzzy. Paradoxical
aybe, because to each of us individually the boundaries no doubt appear pretty
lear, but they're fuzzy because very few of those individual clear boundaries
xactly coincide.
Is that 'wrong'? Of course not! One person's experience of a universal principle
an never be more than one person's experience of it, no matter who that person
s. The Organon and Chronic Diseases represent Hahnemann's experiences and
iscoveries in respect of it, his mapping and modelling of it in one particular
ay, and his development of a system to utilise it with (reasonably) predictable
nd replicable results. But unless you ARE Hahnemann, you cannot see it in the
ame way as Hahnemann or practice it in the same way as Hahnemann. Divergence is
tterly inevitable because every practitioner brings qualities of their own
niqueness to their practice. This is how it is with any system. And it's
xactly as it should be. What's more, it's the signature of a HEALTHY system.
iversity creates a robust and flexible system - just examine nature for proof
f that principle: biodiversity is key. In contrast, a system continually
estrained and constrained to a single expression be
comes dogmatic, inflexible and unhealthy. It's analogous to monocultures and
he massive energetic input they require to maintain them in anything
pproaching a productive state!
Given this fact, we then have to decide democratically what degree of diversity
s acceptable to still remain within a reasonable consensus definition of
homeopathy'. This isn't as easy as it appears. How would you react, for
nstance, if I was to suggest that someone who grafts a whole extra chunk of
peculative theory (bearing in mind Hahnemann's admonitions against theorising)
nto Hahnemann's work, changes the whole focus of casetaking, introduces false
istinctions between symptoms, trumpets from the rooftops that their version of
omeopathy is in fact Hahnemann's 'One True Way' (despite it being clear that
t's not) and spends a fair bit of time dissing the methods of other
ractitioners, should be accepted unreservedly as a 'Classical' homeopath? Would
ou hesitate? If you would, then you've just blown Kent out the window.
The thing is, it's perfectly possible to read Kent's perspective INTO the
rganon and see no dissonance. And to accept Kent's significant deviation from
ahnemann's method without seeing any inconsistency. Particularly when Kent
omes with the authority of antiquity and a seal of approval from the profession
..
It's not just Kent. This is something we all do. We project and superimpose our
wn unique perspective onto Hahnemann's until the two become indistinguishable
o us. Some of us even go so far as to imagine we alone have THE key to the
rganon's correct interpretation! Kent did it, and every practitioner who has
aid claim to representing the 'One True Way' of Hahnemann ever since has done
he same. It's the beauty of universal principles that they're amenable to such
iverse but utterly fitting interpretation. It is, after all, what makes them
niversal! And it's also the seed of unending dissent when one 'One True Way'
eets another ...
Actually, the term 'Homeopathy' isn't so very different from allopathic disease
abels. We have no trouble accepting that these have no 'reality', value or
urpose when it comes to healing the patient. Why is it then we can't see this
n respect of 'Homeopathy'?
It seems to me it's mainly because people hitch their own identities to the
erm, then react emotionally to the idea of being identified with practices they
on't personally resonate with. But homeopathy isn't an identity. It's something
e do. It's a label encapsulating a set of criteria much as a disease label
ncapsulates a set of symptoms. It's a communication tool and, like all
anguage, can only ever convey an approximation of what we mean because the
ersonal individual nuances we all carry in association with words guarantees
hat no two understandings are ever identical. Not to mention that you don't
ave to have ALL the symptoms of the disease to acquire the diagnosis ...
Systems and methods are just tools. They don't get people better. They're of no
ccount whatsoever until they're picked up and used in a particular way by a
articular practitioner on a particular patient and even then it's not the
ystems and methods themselves that are causing the shift towards health. The
bject of using them is to help sick people get better. THAT'S what's important
ere. Yes, it helps if we can devise systems that can be replicated reasonably
onsistently, because the hope is that by so doing we get to help more of the
eople more of the time, but that supposition itself is based on a mechanistic
nterpretation of reality which is highly questionable. It's also irrelevant to
he patient. They just want to get better.
Why can't we simply celebrate our diversity and the perfection *for each of us*
f all our own individual paths instead of fussing and fighting about whether a
articular practice does or doesn't warrant a particular label?! There is SO
uch more yet to explore and discover and so much more potential to realise!
Wendy
On 21 Dec 2011, at 04:02, John Harvey wrote:
> Hi, Shannon --
It's a noble thing to be able to do, to understand and tolerate anything
posing as anything else and to be ready to explain and promote it
regardless of the consequences. I don't have your stomach for it, but I
appreciate that your intent in doing so has nothing in common with the
effect it has in confusing newcomers to homoeopathy about what planet
"homoeopaths" are on who will do this; that you have no idea of the
destructiveness of calling every stupid idea, unsupported conjecture, and
mindless idiocy a "type" of homoeopathy and may never be capable of taking
responsibility for clarifying the confusion yourself.
John
______________________________________________
omeopathy Mailing List
omeopathy@homeolist.com
ttp://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen